Haines Borough CRC presses for clear Title 18 definitions, seeks to keep personal communications equipment exempt from cell‑tower rules

The Haines Borough Code Review Commission on Jan. 13 reviewed a staff-drafted amendment to Title 18 focused on communication equipment and outlined what it will ask the assembly to clarify before any ordinance is adopted. Planner Chen Wu presented a memo proposing consolidated revisions to Title 18 intended to remove ambiguity in the land‑use code and provide a starting point for systematic modernization.

"This memo presents a consolidated set of recommendations for the ongoing review and update of Haines Borough Title 18 land use code," Chen told commissioners, and asked that the memo be circulated so the CRC could review it at a future meeting. The memo (which Chen said staff will share after the meeting) identifies typographical corrections and outdated procedures — including a newspaper-publication requirement for conditional use permits that staff said is impracticable in a jurisdiction with a single local paper.

Commissioners focused the evening’s discussion on a draft communication‑equipment ordinance that has been revised multiple times by different bodies. Several members said the CRC’s original intent was to regulate commercial towers while exempting small, personal systems. "Our recommendation was to exempt that, and it should be consistent throughout," one commissioner said, arguing the ordinance should not be a backdoor to restrict personal equipment such as amateur‑radio antennas or private satellite earth stations.

Members asked that the ordinance include a clear definition of "personal communication equipment" in the definitions section and that any conflicting provisions elsewhere in the draft be removed. The clerk’s memo for the next (joint) meeting, staff said, recommends specific definitions (for example, colocation, monopole, modification) and flags where the current draft’s language produces unintended changes to the zoning‑use chart.

Commissioners also flagged two substantive drafting issues added after the CRC’s earlier version: the zoning chart uses the abbreviation "NA," which in the current draft appears to mean "not allowed" rather than "not applicable," and setback language was rewritten to measure minimum setbacks from the base of a tower to the nearest property line or right of way. One revised draft also increases certain zone setbacks (for example, a 150% above‑ground‑height setback was added for single‑residential zones) and proposes a larger exclusion radius from schools (the draft alternated between 1,000 and 1,500 feet in different versions), prompting members to request attorney clarification.

Commissioners requested that the CRC present a concise recommendation at the upcoming joint meeting so the assembly and staff understand CRC intent. One member volunteered to draft a short recommendation that stresses: (1) adopt the definitions included in the clerk’s memo; (2) explicitly exempt the enumerated personal communication equipment and treat it as use‑by‑right; and (3) ensure the zoning‑use chart and ordinance language are consistent. Staff and at least one commissioner said the assembly’s attorney will attend the next meeting and can explain legal references, including ties to the federal Telecommunications Act and how the ordinance should treat "significant gap in service coverage."

The commission did not vote on the ordinance itself at the Jan. 13 meeting; members agreed to review the clerk’s packet before the next joint meeting and to bring a prepared recommendation. The clerk said the memo and ordinance language are in the packet for the assembly meeting scheduled the following day.